Vanguard News Network

Alex wrote: “By lowering the endurance of a person, a group, or nation, and by constant degradation and defamation, it is possible to induce, thus, a state of shock which will receive adequately any command given.”

The Patty Hearst situation comes to mind. According to a book I read on this event (it may have been hers, I don’t remember), she was subjected to repeated defamation, degradation, and outright physical abuse that she was completely transformed from a yuppie princess into a bank-robbing gang moll. Today, this is sometimes referred to as the “Patty Hearst Syndrome”.

Psychopolitics is a must read for anyone wanting to understand what is happening in the Western world. The degradation of society starts with targeting Man; for patriarchy is the fabric from whence great civilizations are built. The Man provides structure not only to the framework of his family, but is a reflection of his culture perpetuated to the next generation as well. To demean and debase his belief structures, loyalty, heritage, and history is to burn down his house and leave his wife and children unprotected. Women and children become wards of the State. In the case of child custody, all of the attributes of psychopolitics are used in the courts to undermine and debase the Man; the fabric of our culture.

A woman’s happiness is found through love and welfare. A strong male provider is the convincing attribute in meeting all her needs. Through this, their children are most assured culture and kinsmanship. Without it there is no individual, tradition, or race. -eduardo

Read my four part series called the “Age of Female Sentinals� in the Alex Linder’s VNN archives.

-eduardo, S. B.

Fuck that jewish shit.

Interesting responses. Noone has debased women though. You read into something that doesn’t exist. However, you should look at the heuristic of history, not the exception. Yes, there have been women figures in history that have been in positions of power. But, don’t let that cloud your thinking. Western culture has always been based on patriarchal precepts despite positions of authority given women. The whole notion of matriarchal society is for the most part fictional. The promotion of it’s existence is found in jewish/feminist/lesbian circles. Women defending the “fort” or the home per se, ‘while the man is away’ doesn’t change anything. Better understanding of male thinking versus female thinking would greatly help you understand my missive above. Simon Sheppard of Heretical.com presents some very good insights. Try reading my “Age of Female Sentinels” series or “The Gynaeceum” to get a better understanding. They are found in Linder’s archives. There, I reference several studies for your better understanding. If you are alluding that there is some form of equality between men and women, this is analogous of claiming a duck is equal to a chicken. The genders have very different strengths. One example is that males heuristically have a survivor mindset whereas females heuristically prefer security (Taylor, Klein, et al). The sexes dovetail and are dependent on the other. It is a jewish tactic to faust the sophist preaching of “equality” between the sexes. This notion of equality (or egalitaritarian) has caused tremendous devisiveness between men and women and the failed results can be seen in the workplace, military, police, etc.

Females have way too much influence now given their mass/brains ratio to be anything but an enormous hindrance doing anything but fulfilling their natural obligation which to have children for white males. That’s a full time job in itself. Females desiring careers post-TEOTWAWKI should be nailed into pine boxes and shipped into nigger-held territories in exchange for fresh fruit and chitlins. They can do whatever they want with them when they get them – and so they shall.

The man goes to his job and bows and scrapes and then wants someone to come bow and scrape before him, and thus defines human misery. The Calvinists with their heaven through work, it is right and holy to be exploited by the money men for thus thou enter heaven, and then those exploited taking it home and trying to set up their own relationship of the same order.

Ah, fuck that. Time to throw off such jewish crap and men to be men and women women. Honour, pride and dignity all the way around. Those who slam christianity are often the most ardent disciples of its worst features. Oh the irony, oh the humanity. Thank goodness some women stood up and said I will not allow you to treat me as you allow yourself to be treated! But did the men listen? No in most cases. And unfortunately the jew got in and said look at your husband bowing and scraping, instead of bowing and scraping to him, why not bow and scrape before the idol he postrates himself before? And why not? One master is equal to another.

Get off your goddamn knees and bow before no idol, but stand forward in the bright and blessed beauty of life itself in all its wonder and mystery. But who has the strength? Easier just to bow and scrape and complain when you cannot find someone to bow and scrape before you.

Try this column by Florence King…

THEY SAY a drowning person sees his whole life flash before him as he goes down for the third time. The feminization of America is having the same effect on me.

The chain of reasoning in date-rape cases brings back my grandmother’s lecture on the proper way for a lady to walk past a barbershop.

“Always look straight ahead. If you look in, the men will think you’re looking in.”

“But if I looked in, I would be looking in.”

“Yes, but not really.”

Whenever I watch debates about women in combat, I begin hurtling through time the moment a worried general utters the words “male bonding” and “unit cohesion.” The brass had better worry; anyone who has ever been in a girls’ gym class has heard a snippy little voice say, “I’m not going to throw the ball to her.”

Dee Dee Myers’s disjointed press briefings? I am back once more in a Fifties dorm, listening to a panicky coed as she tries to figure out when her last period started.

“It’s my middle, but it isn’t really my middle because it’s February, and that messes everything up because it’s so short. I think it was the day you traded that green sack dress you hated for Flo’s blue shrug–no, no, wait a minute, it was before that, because Flo wore the shrug to the movies the night I had cramps. What movie did we see? If I knew that, I could call the theater and find out when it played. Oh, I know! It was the one where Deborah Kerr saved the boy from being a sissy–no, no, wait! I take that back. It was the one where Charlton Heston was Andrew Jackson, and Yul Brynner did … um, something, I forget what, and there was this big battle.”

Just about everything brings back memories of how I got started in writing. The 2,476th feature on mammograms, the 4,728th segment on unwed mothers, the eternal “special” hosted by Connie Chung, Meryl Streep’s face as she discusses her “films”–expose me to any one of these and I will start reciting verbatim from the 1958 Writer’s Market:

True-confessions stories must be about subjects of interest to women: marital discord, adultery, problem children, alcoholism, insecurity, anxiety, depression, nervous breakdowns, accidents, illness, surgery, and sudden death. Upbeat ending essential. No humor; our readers take life seriously. Length 3,000 to 5,000; payment 5 cents per word. Enclose SASE.

The first story I sold was called, “I Committed Adultery in a Diabetic Coma.” I think of it every time a Women’s Health Special Supplement falls out of the newspaper.

The feminization of America has progressed so far that sometimes I have a hard time telling whether I’m watching the news on CNN or a three-hankie weeper on American Movie Classics. Barry Goldwater’s sudden espousal of gay rights, or Barbara Stanwyck yearning for social approval? George Bush sabotaging himself to preserve his “place in history,” or Lana Turner agonizing over What People Will Think? The scandaltainted politician who decides to retire “to spend more time with my family,” or Joan Crawford growling, “I’ll do anything for those kids, you hear me, anything”?

It’s especially confusing to watch old movies in the era of apologies. A nation so nice-nellied that it sees nothing odd about apologizing for homeless gypsies has only one apology left, and we just used it. In October, the Senate passed a resolution apologizing to Hawaii for overthrowing Queen Liliuokalani in 1893. It finally happened: we apologized to ourselves. Is that Joan Fontaine cringing through Rebecca or not?

I FOUND myself aboard another time capsule when the Houston Oilers fined football star David Williams for skipping out on a game in order to attend the birth of his child. The Sensitivity Patrol led by Anna Quindlen flew into the usual hysterical rage, but I flew back to the 1940s and sat on the floor beside our huge Philco console with my ear pressed against the brocaded vent so as not to miss a word of Abbott & Costello.

This particular show was as wonderfully wacky as the others. Not once did Lou Costello give any indication that anything was wrong. Not until the next day did we learn that he had gone on the air only hours after receiving word that his son had drowned. No one called him “insensitive” for leaving his wife alone while he made the whole country laugh; in the flood of admiring editorials that followed, one word stood out: “trouper.”

The feminization of America has made emotions sacrosanct while condemning as cold and unfeeling rigorous concepts such as duty and honor. Propelled by incessant hosannas to woman’s “finer” this and “softer” that, we make emotional decisions instead of ethical ones and congratulate ourselves for having “heart.”

We need to get a grip on ourselves while there’s still time. A bracing antidote to feminization is Mary Wollstonecraft, the Ur-feminist of the rational eighteenth century, who knew that political correctness is nothing more than female touchiness writ large. Said she: “I wish to persuade women to endeavor to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost synonymous with epithets of weakness.”

Jew policies-for-goyim might be thought of us as the scientific application of female feelingways in order to produce a social order in which females are never contradicted.

Women on tv always get the last laugh. Always. Every single time.

Every possible thing is done to make white males double clutch, to induce doubt and confusion. The white man is trained always to question what his deepest instincts tell him, to rely solely on external gods of stage and screen.

her analysis primarily on the public writings and lives of literary women and liberal clergy in the Northeast, she argues that they created woman’s sphere in response to their own “disestablishment”-ministers disestablished. from politics and women from positions in colonial homes where they could wield real authority. The realm they created was one of “influence,” not power; women were supposed to work subconsciously on the lives of others through moral and emotional appeal. She suggests further that this realm was sentimental and “narcissistic,” encouraging a self-involvement which refused to recognize the real situation of women and clergy in the larger society. For male ministers and other writers who promulgated the sentimental mode, it represented a disturbing (even to them) and neurotic rejection of masculinity, as they defined themselves increasingly in feminine terms. Douglas also treats two examples of protest against sentimentalization, Margaret Fuller and Herman Melville (the chapter on the latter being exceptional in its brilliance and power), showing their ultimate frustration in their attempts to counter the prevailing tendencies in American culture.

There are a few weak spots in her presentation. It is questionable whether women in colonial times wielded the authority Douglas suggests, and her case is based only on a few examples. Cott’s book argues that even then, women were defined as in “subjection” to men (though not yet as “inferior”), and it seems likely that in those times too, any power they had was really only “influence.” This is only a caution against attributing too much to the “Age of Homespun” as Douglas calls it-to which we cannot return in any case. Second, in her treatment of the clergy, she does not consider (nor does she intend to) men of the evangelical wing of Protestantism, many of whom, like Finney and Moody, turned away from careers in the men’s world of law and business in order to devote themselves to religion. Moody especially, like Billy Sunday whom Douglas mentions in her epilogue, tried to create a religion for men as well as women while remaining within the sentimental mode. The evangelical clergy require a separate treatment. For the liberals, however, her treatment is very persuasive.

Douglas’s description is interwoven with a further and highly significant argument: The feminization of culture provided the foundation for an emerging mass consumer society. The grandeur of Puritan theology gave way to sentimental fiction which only flattered the reader and required no thought. A sense of history disappeared as popular literature preoccupied itself with the private realm of domestic affairs, the linearity of time being lost in the cyclical movements of biological circumstance. This culminated in the “domestication of death,” in which the dead became near and accessible, the “remorseless screws” on coffins being replaced by locks and keys. The afterlife was a replica of the ideal proto-suburban home; the cemetery became a tourist attraction. This preoccupation with the private, emotional, biological realm as opposed to the public, intellectual, and historical,
462 – The Bonds of Womanhood: “Woman’s Sphere” in New England, 1780-1835 & The Feminization of American Culture

is, Douglas argues, the fundamental problem with American culture. Its endless repetition and sameness is exemplified today in television and advertising, just as it was in popular literature of the nineteenth century.

Here I think Douglas is precisely on target, but her argument for the connection with consumerism could be made even stronger. She makes allusions to the concern shown in domestic novels over property and ownership, and provides an example or two of heroines who invested their emotions in the activity of shopping. Yet as Cott observes in her book, it was a dictum even of Cotton Mather in the seventeenth century that women “Spend (or� Save) what others Get.” For women to be consumers was nothing new. What was new was the sharp division between consumption and production and the emergence of uniformity as a value, the latter deriving from a perversion of democratic ideals, the exaltation of the “average” which Douglas discusses, and from the insistence that people not only feel (in the emotional realm of women) but feel alike, for feeling was the bond of feminized society. Further, I suspect that consumerism sprang from the division of the private realm into two poles-the “passions” on the one hand and “property” on the other. Consumerism was the mode of exchange which transformed one into the other, with property, things, becoming objectifications of emotions (as Douglas also suggests) and emotions being on sale in the marketplace. This is not to criticize Douglas’s point, only to say that her argument about consumerism as it now stands rests on hints and suggestions. A full analysis would require an investigation into the ideology of property, the other half of the private realm, as thorough as Douglas has produced for the ideology of the passions.

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1978/v34-4-bookreview3.htm

Society needs women to think as little as it needs them to fight wars. Government encouragement of “educated” women is merely a cover for government’s real interest: preventing the rise of a competing minority – ie, white males to challenge the ruling jew/traitor elite.

Blah, blah, blah, more meaningless sound bites. I’ve known more humorless men than women. Women appreciate humor, that is why it is known as an aphrodesiac.

As for putting women on pedestals that is the same meaningless crap pedalled by the same insanity. Just a different class of insanity that deprived them of their carnal natures and so increased the use of prostitutes.

You won’t deal with women as women and thus regain your authority as a man and then whine and cry like the little pussy boys you are when they are forced to let their spirit flow down unnatural channels. So then it comes down to might is right, just like any moron and again understanding is lost.

Fuck, I can’t believe the amount of mis-education and pointing the finger at everyone but yourself going on. The jew got his hooks in you, and you are all misdirected. I want things my way whines the little baby slamming his tiny fists on his high stand, chocolate pudding all over his face and running down his bib.

I know men. I am one. You can’t fool me with all this blather. I know our blindness and guilt in the matter. Time to start taking some responsibility and learning not to be so self centred. The “otherworldly” is all well and good when it seems to get you what you want (tho’ in truth it doesn’t) but on every other issue it’s a “disaster”.

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming and just shows the level of shit still clinging to your clay. You judeo-christians are a laugh riot! )o(

See my answer to the review on VNNF about what really feminized society. It goes back further than what that allows.

Just the sheer breadth of ignorance is amazing.

See, some men don’t have a sense of humour even when they think they do. )o(

I never said man could see things from a woman’s point of view. But it an interesting exercise in empathy to try and then figure out you cannot approach it. They are different and that has to be respected. We cannot impose our own male view of what we think they should be and demand they live up to it. Our view of what they should be. We must give them the freedom to be what we cannot phathom, and seek mutual understanding and enjoy the difference for goodness sakes. Communication is vital.

You just mis-read in order to try and justify. Some would claim that to be a feminine trait. How many testicles do you have?

CREON
Yet I would have thee know that o’er-stubborn spirits are most often humbled; ’tis the stiffest iron, baked to hardness in the fire, that thou shalt oftenest see snapped and shivered; and I have known horses that show temper brought to order by a little curb; there is no room for pride when thou art thy neighbour’s slave.-This girl was already versed in insolence when she transgressed the laws that had been set forth; and, that done, lo, a second insult,-to vaunt of this, and exult in her deed.

Now verily I am no man, she is the man, if this victory shall rest with her, and bring no penalty. No! be she sister’s child, or nearer to me in blood than any that worships Zeus at the altar of our house,-she and her kinsfolk shall not avoid a doom most dire; for indeed I charge that other with a like share in the plotting of this burial.

And summon her-for I saw her e’en now within,-raving, and not mistress of her wits. So oft, before the deed, the mind stands self-convicted in its treason, when folks are plotting mischief in the dark. But verily this, too, is hateful,-when one who hath been caught in wickedness then seeks to make the crime a glory.

ANTIGONE
Wouldst thou do more than take and slay me?

CREON
No more, indeed; having that, I have all.

ANTIGONE
Why then dost thou delay? In thy discourse there is nought that pleases me,-never may there be!-and so my words must needs be unpleasing to thee. And yet, for glory-whence could I have won a nobler, than by giving burial to mine own brother? All here would own that they thought it well, were not their lips sealed by fear. But royalty, blest in so much besides, hath the power to do and say what it will.

CREON
Thou differest from all these Thebans in that view.

ANTIGONE
These also share it; but they curb their tongues for thee.

CREON
And art thou not ashamed to act apart from them?

ANTIGONE
No; there is nothing shameful in piety to a brother.

CREON
Was it not a brother, too, that died in the opposite cause?

ANTIGONE
Brother by the same mother and the same sire.

CREON
Why, then, dost thou render a grace that is impious in his sight?

ANTIGONE
The dead man will not say that he so deems it.

CREON
Yea, if thou makest him but equal in honour with the wicked.

ANTIGONE
It was his brother, not his slave, that perished.

CREON
Wasting this land; while he fell as its champion.

ANTIGONE
Nevertheless, Hades desires these rites.

CREON
But the good desires not a like portion with the evil.

ANTIGONE
Who knows but this seems blameless in the world below?

CREON
A foe is never a friend-not even in death.

ANTIGONE
Tis not my nature to join in hating, but in loving.

CREON
Pass, then, to the world of the dead, and, it thou must needs love, love them. While I live, no woman shall rule me.

Wise old Sophocles eh? I don’t suggest anyone bother reading Antigone, the nuances would be too much for the judeo mind exhibited here.

You’re naive too, if you think women go for humor. That’s what they tell the idiotic judeo-wimmin’s mags you must be browsing. When the clock turns 23 women they go for money, and I don’t blame them.

Hey you take one and claim it representative of all. Isn’t that the kind of logic you once denounced? You haven’t read, I mean READ anything I have written. I am quite conversant however with your judaic shadowplay of contending semitic corruptions. I refuse to play such febble games, either I burn bright or my darkness consumes all, and ‘tempt shine in it if you can. Ha!

One could say that women’s views are just as diverse as men’s however in answer to that the simple thing to ask is how long is the boundary of the Mandelbrot set, or two different Julia sets?

When I talk to people about racialism, I find that men are at least five times more receptive than women. Men are much more prone to think “Is this true or false?” whereas women are much more prone to think “Does it benefit me to believe this?” The latter way of thinking does exist among men, but much more among women.

I suppose this is because they have always been in a state of dependancy, which has shaped them during thousands of generations to think of security first. That is neither good nor bad, it just is.

Also, women are much more likely than men to be offended when you disagree with them. The male, analytical way of thinking is: “this subject is separate from me.” The female, emotional way of thinking is: “my opinion is a part of me.” So when you talk to them about race, they are much less likely to change their opinions because 1) it is risky and provides no benefits, and 2) they are offended when you criticize their beliefs.

You’re a lucid chap, Carpenter. If only all commentary were like yours.

“…The liberal classroom will always present this as yet another feather in the hat for women: “We are so clever because we don’t think only through cold, boring logic.â€? Ever heard something like that? It is entirely false: it is better to judge matters on their own merits, and not let your analysis of a situation be clouded by how you wish it to be, which is the emotional way of thinking.

Emotion says: I wish everybody could just get along and were the same. So I’ll pretend they can and they are…”

Exactly right, Carpenter. Jerry Abbott says the same about the way Liberals think (http://jabpage.org). They see the world as they want it to be and substitute that for how the world really is. Thus, “In an ideal world negroes would achieve as much as White people” becomes “negroes do achieve as much as White people”. The results of this way of thinking are well known.

A.,
What was your point again?
Something about how you are outraged that someone had a good word about patriarchy?
If so, we’ve yet to see a reason for your views. It seems you’ve offered lots of attitude, but attitude isn’t argument. Nor is this: “you have to come to some sort of understanding that life and society don’t follow rigid rules, and only in certain circumstances [?] are ameniable [sic] to logic[…]it is rather illogical to expect otherwise.” Do you know the meaning of the word “illogical,” or do you see it as merely a synonym of “wrong”?
By the way, are you a poof? Your thinking style strongly suggests it.